NANA BLAY KWOFIE & ANOTHER v. MADAM ROSE BLISSET & ORS

HONYENUGA, J. A.

This is an appeal against the Ruling of the High Court, Tarkwa dated the 12th day of January, 2015. The trial High Court had granted an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants/appellants from in anyway interfering with or dealing with the land in dispute until the final determination of the case.

The defendants/appellants would be referred to as the appellants and the plaintiff/respondent as the respondents.

By their writ of summons which was accompanied by a statement of claim, the respondents claimed against the appellants as follows: “(a) A declaration that the Tufuhene of Oyoko family of Himan represented by it (sic) accredited elders have gifted all that parcel of land lying at Prestea and bounded on the Norther by the Ariston North Concession Number CV 734, on the South by the Himan Divisional Stool Land, on the East by the Intermediate Concession Number CV 215 M & T and in the West by New Ekotokroo Concession Number CV 509.

b) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants either by themselves, their agents, servants, workmen, privies from interfering with the plaintiff’s ownership, possession or occupation of the said land.

c) General damages for trespass”. The respondent filed an ex-parte motion for interim injunction to restrain the appellants and others from interfering with the disputed land.

The application was granted to last for ten days.

Thereafter, the appellants entered conditional appearance.

The defendants filed a statement of defence and counterclaim as follows: “i. Declaration of title in the name of the family to the land, subject matter of dispute.

Declaration that the true intention of the family as indicated in a letter dated 18th March, 2008 was to appoint the plaintiff caretaker over the land, subject matter of dispute.

Declaration that the plaintiff is estopped by conduct from doing or acting contrary to the parties’ true intention captured in the letter dated 18th March, 2008. iv.

An order for the delivery up of the site plan in the plaintiff’s possession for cancellation by the court; v. Recovery of possession; vi.

An injunction restraining the plaintiff, his agents, assigns, privies or howsoever called from having any dealings with the land, subject matter of dispute, except in his capacity as a member of the family; and vii.

Accounts”. Before the appellant could file their statement of defence and counterclaim, the respondent filed a motion on notice for an order of interlocutory i